General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWould you say "illegal immigrants" or "undocumented" ?
Are they about the same to you or is one choice better.
edit: If possible say why. Thanks for your thoughts 
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
GP6971
(31,141 posts)
AuntPatsy
(9,904 posts)
azmom
(5,208 posts)
-none
(1,884 posts)With certain segments on DU, not so much.
brush
(53,764 posts)This is 2015, why is this even a question, especially here on DU.
GummyBearz
(2,931 posts)Someone witnessed the birth... An eye witness account is a form of documentation.
Or maybe the poster is asking if immigrants be deemed illegal, under the laws of a sovereign nation? Like if a nation had a system setup to allow legal immigration, but people ignored those laws and illegally immigrated to said nation? Obviously that is purely a theoretical situation...
brush
(53,764 posts)Again, why is this even a question here? Why are we debating whether to use repug talking points.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)brush
(53,764 posts)ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)
randys1
(16,286 posts)brush
(53,764 posts)You answer it if you want to veer that far from the topic.
GummyBearz
(2,931 posts)Illegal is bad because no one can be illegal.
Undocumented is OK... even though no one can be undocumented??
Instead of shooting ourselves in the foot with technical debates on wording, just cut the shit show and get to the heart beat of the policy issue. Should we adjust our immigration laws? I think we should... so lets solve that
DrDan
(20,411 posts)bash racism
bash bigotry
bash use of guns that takes a life
But don't bash all the people that live in a large section of our country. That is simply bigotry. (but permitted and unfortunately prevalent here - on this "progressive" site)
brush
(53,764 posts)The policies, racism, bigotry, that flag, the denial of rights and opportunity, and most of all the killings of blacks, need bashing.
DrDan
(20,411 posts)It's more blatant and in-your-face in parts of the South though.
I mean Charleston just happened.
merrily
(45,251 posts)issued by that country.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)and they say what they can get away with.
that's one that they have so far, been able to.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)violated the law, just like "illegal business" would mean a business was operating without legal permission.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)As Kennedy explained, removal of an unauthorized migrant is a civil matter where even if the person is out of status, federal officials have wide discretion to determine whether deportation makes sense
http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/05/opinion/garcia-illegal-immigrants/
Also from the article:
In this country, there is still a presumption of innocence that requires a jury to convict someone of a crime. If you don't pay your taxes, are you an illegal? What if you get a speeding ticket? A murder conviction? No. You're still not an illegal. Even alleged terrorists and child molesters aren't labeled illegals.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)is illegal by the use of that phrase than you would be if you used the phrase "illegal occupant" or "illegal driver".
Also "illegal" and "criminal" are different things.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Seriously....no one is illegal.
brush
(53,764 posts)That phrase, to most progressives, is a near-slur.
I thought that concept was fairly obvious.
treestar
(82,383 posts)illegally in the U.S. Even right wingers don't mean the people are illegal themselves. People can't be illegal. Even Hitler was legal. He was born.
earthside
(6,960 posts)And these folks are immigrating illegally.
There isn't any good term for an individual who breaks the law to get into any sovereign nation.
They are ... illegal immigrants.
Now, whether or not this entry is morally, ethically acceptable depends upon why they are crossing the border without due process -- that is another question entirely.
But, I have no problem with the term "illegal immigrant".
'Undocumented immigrant" isn't really much better anyway.
I don't know why some people have problems with plain language; not everything has to be cast as some sort of political spin, you know.
brush
(53,764 posts)oldandhappy
(6,719 posts)
roody
(10,849 posts)Christopher Colombus was an illegal immigrant.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)CreekDog
(46,192 posts)that certainly is false, but it is revealing that you think so.
EX500rider
(10,839 posts)CreekDog
(46,192 posts)I'm going to try to act surprised that you would think something so ridiculous of the people Columbus encountered upon his arrival.
For example, here is my shocked smiley:
EX500rider
(10,839 posts)They used stone and bone and wood for their tools and weapons. IE: the Stone Age.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)You think that you can judge them as without rules or laws because you don't see or know of what you consider modern age uses of metals.
EX500rider
(10,839 posts)Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)Not exactly the Napoleonic code but more like a general rule of thumb.
EX500rider
(10,839 posts)I was mostly responding to the post: They weren't stone age when Columbus arrived
When the Caribbean Islanders most certainly were.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)How can someone working in the legal system think such a profoundly false thing?
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Gayanashagowa or the Great Law of Peace of the Iroquois (or Haudenosaunee) Six Nations (Oneida, Mohawk, Cayuga, Onondaga, the Seneca and Tuscarora) is the oral constitution whereby the Iroquois Confederacy was bound together. The law was written on wampum belts, conceived by Dekanawidah, known as The Great Peacemaker, and his spokesman Hiawatha. The original five member nations ratified this constitution near modern-day Victor, New York, with the sixth nation (the Tuscarora) being added in ca. 1722.
The laws were first recorded and transmitted not in written language, but by means of wampum symbols that conveyed meaning. In a later era it was translated into English. The Great Law of Peace is divided into 117 articles. The united Iroquois nations are symbolized by an Eastern White Pine tree, called the Tree of Peace. Each nation or tribe plays a delineated role in the conduct of government.
Attempts to date the founding of the Iroquois Confederacy focus on a reported solar eclipse, which many scholars identify as the one that occurred in 1451.
Influence on the United States Constitution
Historians, including Donald Grinde of the University at Buffalo, The State University of New York, have claimed that the democratic ideals of the Gayanashagowa provided a significant inspiration to Benjamin Franklin, James Madison and other framers of the United States Constitution. Franklin circulated copies of the proceedings of the 1744 Treaty of Lancaster among his fellow colonists; at the close of this document, the Six Nations leaders offer to impart instruction in their democratic methods of government to the English. John Rutledge of South Carolina, delegate to the Constitutional Convention, is said to have read lengthy tracts of Six Nations law to the other framers, beginning with the words "We, the people, to form a union, to establish peace, equity, and order..."[1] In October 1988, the U.S. Congress passed Concurrent Resolution 331 to recognize the influence of the Iroquois Constitution upon the American Constitution and Bill of Rights.[2]
The extent of the influence of Six Nations law on the U.S. Constitution is disputed by other scholars.[3] Haudenosaunee historian Elizabeth Tooker has pointed to several differences between the two forms of government, notably that all decisions were made by a consensus of male chiefs who gained their position through a combination of blood descent and selection by female relatives, that representation on the basis of the number of clans in the group rather than the size or population of the clans, that the topics discussed were decided by a single tribe. Tooker concluded there is little resemblance between the two documents, or reason to believe the Six Nations had a meaningful influence on the American Constitution, and that it is unclear how much impact Canasatego's statement at Lancaster actually had on the representatives of the colonies.[4] Stanford University historian Jack N. Rakove argued against any Six Nations influence, pointing to lack of evidence in U.S. constitutional debate records, and examples of European antecedents for democratic institutions.[5]
Journalist Charles C. Mann has noted other differences between The Great Law of Peace and the original U.S. Constitution, including the original Constitution's denial of suffrage to women, and rule of majority as opposed to consensus.[6]
Example articles
§37: There shall be one war chief from each nation, and their duties shall be to carry messages for their chiefs, and to take up arms in case of emergency. They shall not participate in the proceedings of the Council of the League, but shall watch its progress and in case of an erroneous action by a chief, they shall receive the complaints of the people and convey the warnings of the women to him. The people who wish to convey messages to the chiefs of the League shall do so through the war chief of their nation. It shall always be his duty to lay the cases, questions, and propositions of the people before the council of the League.
§58: Any Chief or other person who submit to Laws of a foreign people are alienated and forfeit all claim in the Five Nations.
§101: It shall be the duty of the appointed managers of the Thanksgiving festivals to do all that is needful for carrying out the duties of the occasions. The recognized festivals of Thanksgiving shall be the Midwinter Thanksgiving, the Maple or Sugar-Making Thanksgiving, the Raspberry Thanksgiving, the Strawberry Thanksgiving, the Corn Planting Thanksgiving, the Corn Hoeing Thanksgiving, The Little Festival of Green Corn, the Great Festival of Ripe Corn, and the Complete Thanksgiving for the Harvest. Each nation's festivals shall be held in their Longhouses.
§107: A certain sign shall be known to all the people of the Five Nations which shall denote that the owner or occupant of a house is absent. A stick or pole in a slanting or leaning position shall indicate this and be the sign. Every person not entitled to enter the house by right of living within upon seeing such a sign shall not enter the house by day or by night, but shall keep as far away as his business will permit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Law_of_Peace
I see that there are differences of opinion on its effect on the writers of the USConstituion and Bill of Rights, but to say there were no laws in place is a eurocentric belief. There were laws, and the natives did not appreciate them being broken by the settlers.
The reason we are here today and having this discussion in a European language is because the European continent was eager to relieve population presssure and people wanted their own land. They came here through land grants from the King of England (mine had one) and through charters to operate and bring profits form their work (or the work of slaves) back to Europe. Some came for religious freedom, but they were not the only ones, despite elementary school lessons that glorified them.
They did not speak the native languages, did not understand or follow their customs or laws, nor did they listen to natives about anything. So the land was taken forcibly by means of more modern weaponry than the natives possessed.
I think you should reconsider the idea that there were no laws, which gets close to saying there were no people to talk to and negotiate with, although some did make trade treaties with natives. Others did not. They also came into a land that did not have the same concepts of land usage as natives did. And they didn't know or care, they just called them savages.
Certainly there were atrocities, but mankind is no stranger to such things. And it occured on both sides. The idea that is seldom acknowledged is that the natives did not consider us rightful owners of anything here and they are speaking out more and more.
I think we should be able to work things out with dissolving the country over it. Like slave reparations, the cost will be high, and the sooner the better. Because I think he was correct:
I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever.
~ Thomas Jefferson
We can bend, or we can break. It is no secret that the most maligned of the so-called illegals are from south of the border. The consider they are also americans, and have prior claim to this continent. That is not much different from what we call american indians say.
Some american natives are related to those south of the border and don't respect the border. It is, a man made contruct that has changed over time. Others say they are not related to them and don't want them.
Still, was not the vision of the Founders a world vision? Do you think that looking at this melding of peoples, they would see their global vision and an 'order for the ages' and a 'new world' coming true?
Do you think they expected this continent to be exclusive to those of European descent, or intended future generations to transcend nations, to spread the American Ideals past national boundaries, as the final result?
I think they did. And they left it to us to as Justice Kennedy said, to bring about in spirit the vision of the original founders. Which they could never see, but wanted to have happen. I think things are going along as they were expected to go. There is no such thing as useless as clinging to one moment in time and fighting the future.
Immigrants will change the face of this hemisphere just as we did. It is sad and frightening to some who haven't embraced it but it may have been the plan. The Founders for the most part had classical educations aof the liberal sort, knowing all fields of study, and the history of Europe which they did not want repeated here. As the nation formed, most native names were used for rivers, cities, counties and states. They wanted to be part of this, not part of Europe anymore.
JMHO.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)If you showed up and were allowed to stay/weren't killed, you were welcome. Pretending there were immigration laws is silly.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)about as accurate as something he would say as well.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)I thought not...
No, only the impaired would argue that Christopher Columbus was an "illegal alien"...idiocy that is...help yourself...
pipoman
(16,038 posts)CreekDog
(46,192 posts)I guess we can agree on that.
Kali
(55,007 posts)when I have occasion to interact, I ask their names;
when I have to lump people into a classification, I call them migrants.
undocumented immigrant is more the more legalistic term. the border patrol around here uses the acronym UDA, for undocumented alien.
illegal alien/immigrant is not correct. a person can perform and illegal act, a person is not illegal.
Daemonaquila
(1,712 posts)People are not illegal. People go places, and borders are arbitrary.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)Humans aren't illegal.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)Exactly what I would be willing to do if my future and the future of my children was as shitty as the future for most people in Mexico...everyone should before they piss and moan too loudly..
azmom
(5,208 posts)How bad things are in Mexico. If crossing the border and getting a job picking lettuce is going to feed my family and send them too school. I would do it in a heartbeat.
My parents did it for me, and I will always be grateful for their sacrifice.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)and friends
kentauros
(29,414 posts)"Undocumented" is too sterile and bureaucratic, while "illegal" is just plain wrong.
brooklynite
(94,502 posts)That has job implications for the working class Americans who started here.
kentauros
(29,414 posts)
Xipe Totec
(43,890 posts)Visas held not by the workers, but by the employers.
You don't like it? You're fired. Boom! You are undocumented.
They are slave permits.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... instead of Americans or other immigrants and those with green cards and other forms of papers that let them be more active participants in our work force as those that can be members of unions and also negotiate for higher salaries to help level the playing field more.
We need to call THEM *ILLEGALS* somehow in a way that people know that they are either illegally playing the system, or buying off those in power to let them have legal blessing to do the same thing and screw workers worldwide in the process to make a bigger buck for themselves and their buddies.
herding cats
(19,564 posts)Or UDA, which is short for undocumented alien.
When the RW nuts were heading down to "protect" our borders from scary children who were crossing it from the Mexico side, they took great offense to that term an insisted on using illegal immigrant instead. But, they also insisted on calling themselves "independent American security contractors," which was a made up term to make them look less like a bunch of jerks rushing to scare some kids in dire straits. Ever since then, I've always used undocumented alien.
Full disclosure, I've also been know to wear an Adidas soccer jersey, which they've been known to call a Muslim prayer rug. We obviously have some ideological differences, they and I.
Renew Deal
(81,855 posts)Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)They sent $21.6 billion "home" in 2013 according to the Mexican government.
If they were "immigrants" they would be keeping their money here, in their new home.
http://www.laht.com/article.asp?ArticleId=1564160&CategoryId=14091&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+laht%2Fmailer+%28Latin+American+Herald+Tribune%29
840high
(17,196 posts)RandiFan1290
(6,229 posts)
Still having a bad week after all that bad news?
Hope you feel better
azmom
(5,208 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)If that isn't possible - they don't emigrate.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)There's no other "home" to send their earnings to.
http://www.irs.gov/Individuals/International-Taxpayers/Immigration-Terms-and-Definitions-Involving-Aliens
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)every person who enters the US without proper papers is a permanent resident?
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)I fail to see anything that supports the claim that you're trying to make. Please point out the relevant section you believe supports your statements.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Illegal Alien
Also known as an "Undocumented Alien," is an alien who has entered the United States illegally and is deportable if apprehended, or an alien who entered the United States legally but who has fallen "out of status" and is deportable.
Immigrants are people with legal permanent residence. The vast majority of illegal aliens are neither legal nor permanent.
azmom
(5,208 posts)Hispanic brothers and sisters.
Go Bernie go.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Last edited Mon Jun 29, 2015, 01:39 PM - Edit history (2)
azmom
(5,208 posts)CreekDog
(46,192 posts)not sure he's really earning the title of "ally".
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)i see you edited that out.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)extended family or nuclear family. Italians, for example, very often worked for years before they could afford to bring their wives and children and set up a home in the US. In addition, not every family member chooses to immigrate or can. Parents of adult immigrants, especially often refuse to families, perhaps other children and grandchildren, behind just to come to the US with an adult offspring who has chosen to leave the home land.
I don't mean to be flip, but you post as though you've never met an actual immigrant.
Ms. Toad
(34,062 posts)I didn't have the energy to pull together a post - but you expressed my reaction very clearly.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)first, that process can take years
second, do you honestly think that whatever immigrant family you had never sent anything to relatives? And yes, unless you are a Native American, that applies to you and every other "white" person.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)i was just talking to a friend whose siblings were born in Italy
part of the family was here and part was abroad until the others could come.
you certainly think you possess a lot more knowledge than you actually do.
metalbot
(1,058 posts)If you are an immigrant and have a green card, that generally allows you to bring your immediate family in (husband/wife, children if under 18). Once you have citizenship, you can apply to bring siblings into the US. Be prepared to wait. Wait times vary by country, but just as an example, if you are Filipino, and you have gotten your US citizenship (which is not cheap and requires a waiting time after you get your green card), you can apply to bring brothers and sisters into the US. Current wait time is roughly 20 years.
There are no legal paths for any form of extended family to come to the US legally. Thus, money flows home.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)these people have left their family at home while they come here to try and find work? Or do you expect them to let their family at home starve so that they can 'keep' their money here? Sounds more like a posting on FR than on DU.
Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)Members of each of those immigrant groups sent north of $10 billion to their native lands in 2013 and U.S. immigrants from all countries sent about $120 B to their countries of origin. Here's the real shocker: immigrants all over the world send money back to their homelands.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Not permanent - not an immigrant.
http://www.irs.gov/Individuals/International-Taxpayers/Immigration-Terms-and-Definitions-Involving-Aliens
Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)even those without documentation.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)If you say so.
The fact that they send $22 billion back home to families in Mexico alone, suggests the motivations and ethos of mining, not those of gardening.
Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)Chinese, Indian, and Filipinos combined comprise less than 15% of foreign-born residents yet send back more than $32 billion to their families.
So now in your terms, Chinese, Indian, and Filipinos are doing more "mining not gardening" and yet you focus only on Mexicans.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)There's plenty to talk about regarding legal ones too. As the remittance map suggests, overuse of H1B visas harms american workers as well.
... but at least we have a head count for that abuse... sorta. The INS doesn't publish a number for H1B visa holders in the US at any given time, but it's estimated to be at least 600,000.
Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)and the linked article wasn't segregated by immigration status. You are aware that not all Mexicans working in the U.S are undocumented, right? You're also undoubtedly aware that undocumented workers from many countries are living here with the intent to stay permanently, right?
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)There are about 6 million Mexican citizens working in the US today.
So yes, it is true that some Mexican workers are documented authorized. 1.2% of Mexican workers in the US today are workers legally admitted in 2014.
Therefore 98.8% are either here on visas issued in prior years or are here illegally.
Illegal workers make up 5.4% of the labor force.
Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)according to your link, which also states that the number of undocumented Mexican workers has gone down in recent years while the number from other countries has increased.
And yes, the work visas issued to Mexican citizens in one year is a meaningless part of the equation.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)As our construction industry collapsed, many returned home. They are now coming back now that construction has begun to improve.
Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)Illegal workers make up 5.4% of the labor force.
which is the one with the link to the Pew page.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)Too nuanced for you?
4Q2u2
(1,406 posts)The Flames are heading your way.
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2015/jun/18/ucsd-student-waves-mexican-flag-gradu/
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)CreekDog
(46,192 posts)of course.
like when you asked me if I had a "learning disability".
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4759382
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)CreekDog
(46,192 posts)you're always gonna be the guy that used "learning disability" as an expletive.
the guy that said he will without hesitation use the term "illegal alien".
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)And yes, I, like the US courts specifically, and the government generally use the term "illegal alien"
pampango
(24,692 posts)after 40 years in the US.
Whether you send money to family in other countries has nothing to do with your legal status in the US. Heck, I send money sometimes to my brother in Edmonton. Does that make me 'illegal'?
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)$123 billion was sent to foreign countries, most from temporary foreign workers, from the US.
Enough to support 2.4 million median wage households.
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2014/02/20/remittance-map/
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)that statement is so uninformed, it's a good thing you don't work in the legal system or anything that has to do with immigration.
or if you do, i cringe at the kind of mistakes you are making.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)CreekDog
(46,192 posts)I guess in the sense that they are fiction.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)I personally dislike the word "alien", but accept it for what it is. I have a id card and it says "Alien Registration Card" at the top. My point is that it is used in other countries.
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)and I can't believe this is a question on DU
merrily
(45,251 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)It's awesome to be a celebrity. It's also awesome to be the only one who is right.
http://www.irs.gov/Individuals/International-Taxpayers/Immigration-Terms-and-Definitions-Involving-Aliens
An individual who is not a U.S. citizen or U.S. national.
U.S. National
An individual who owes his sole allegiance to the United States, including all U.S. citizens, and including some individuals who are not U.S. citizens. For tax purposes the term "U.S. national" refers to individuals who were born in American Samoa or were born in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands who have made the election to be treated as U.S. nationals and not as U.S. citizens.
U.S. Citizen
An individual born in the United States.
An individual whose parent is a U.S. citizen.*
A former alien who has been naturalized as a U.S. citizen
An individual born in Puerto Rico.
An individual born in Guam.
An individual born in the U.S. Virgin Islands.
*The Child Citizenship Act, which applies to both adopted and biological children of U.S. citizens, amends Section 320 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to provide for the automatic acquisition of U.S. citizenship when certain conditions have been met. Specifically, these conditions are:
One parent is a U.S. citizen by birth or through naturalization;
The child is under the age of 18;
The child is residing in the United States as a lawful permanent resident alien and is in the legal and physical custody of the U.S. citizen parent; and
If the child is adopted, the adoption must be final.
...
Immigrant
An alien who has been granted the right by the USCIS to reside permanently in the United States and to work without restrictions in the United States. Also known as a Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR). All immigrants are eventually issued a "green card" (USCIS Form I-551), which is the evidence of the alien’s LPR status. LPR’s who are awaiting the issuance of their green cards may bear an I-551 stamp in their foreign passports.
Immigrant visas are available for aliens (and their spouses and children) who seek to immigrate based on their job skills. If an alien has the right combination of skills, education, and/or work experience and are otherwise eligible, the alien may be able to live permanently in the United States. Per USCIS, there are five employment-based immigrant visa preferences (categories): EB-1, EB-2, EB-3, EB-4 and EB-5. Refer to the USCIS Permanent Worker web site for more details.
Nonimmigrant
An alien who has been granted the right by the USCIS to reside temporarily in the United States. Each nonimmigrant is admitted into the United States in the nonimmigrant status, which corresponds to the class of visa with which, or purpose for which, he entered the United States (e.g., a foreign student may enter the United States on an F-1 visa, which corresponds to the F-1 student status in which he was admitted to the United States).
Aliens in some nonimmigrant statuses are allowed to be employed in the United States, and others are not. Some nonimmigrant statuses have rigid time limits for the alien’s stay in the United States, while others do not.
Each nonimmigrant status has rules and guidelines, which must be followed in order for the nonimmigrant to remain "in status." A nonimmigrant who violates one of these rules or guidelines will fall "out of status." An nonimmigrant who remains "out of status" for at least 180 days is deportable and will be unable to re-enter the United States for 3 years. A nonimmigrant who remains "out of status" for at least 365 days is deportable and will be unable to re-enter the United States for 10 years.
For more information on the types of visas available, refer to the Department of State’s Questions About Visas web page.
Illegal Alien
Also known as an "Undocumented Alien," is an alien who has entered the United States illegally and is deportable if apprehended, or an alien who entered the United States legally but who has fallen "out of status" and is deportable.
Temp workers or students legal or illegal, are not immigrants.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)ctrl-f the post to which you're replying.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Also known as an "Undocumented Alien,"
So, your choice to use "illegal" rather than "undocumented"
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Search the US code for "undocumented" = zero hits.
Search the US code for "illegal alien" = 97 hits.
Any more questions? Or is the hole deep enough?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)federal statutes?
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)workers" and "undocumented immigrants" are just politically correct nonsense?
That this isnt reflective of any policy views?
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Which begs the question about nonsense. If it's profitable, is it nonsense?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Response to sufrommich (Original post)
Mon May 11, 2015, 10:06 AM
lumberjack_jeff (30,266 posts)
4. Working class whites should vote for us.
The OP is a problem statement that should be fixed.
We should start by considering how our full-throated support of amnesty for illegal workers sounds to them.
We have no problem recognizing how H1B visas impact the workforce, but it at least has the merit of being regulated; we know exactly how many H1B workers are here taking jobs.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6654899
Is "full-throated support of amnesty for illegal workers" a phrase you encountered in the Internal Revenue Code or the immigration statutes?
Because everyone who's spent 5 minutes debating immigration policy in this country knows which crowd whines, complains, and decries "amnesty for illegal immigrants/workers/aliens."
3. It's supply and demand
Employers gets us cheaply because we're not worth much. We're not worth much because there are a lot of surplus workers here. It's as simple as that. My primary economic asset is the value of my labor, and as long as it's available in surplus, my value is reduced. "Standing together" doesn't mean shit. The cards are stacked against american labor, and even Democrats can't seem to agree that representing their interests trumps squishy concepts of universal human rights.
Everyone has a basic human right to my job, I guess.
The natives working in trades in which immigration has most effect have lost 12% of their income. It's like a gas-price hike which never stops.
http://cis.org/articles/1998/wagestudy/wages.pdf
Immigration, legal and illegal, should stop and not resume until the workforce is growing as fast as the native-born population.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1084833
Yeah, I think everyone here can see EXACTLY why you choose to use phraseology like "amnesty" and "illegal aliens."
For the same reason those of us who support the Democratic party's stance on the issue choose to not use such offensive terminology.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)answer: Not the Chamber of Commerce.
Me? I'm on the side of american labor.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Funny.
http://www.uaw.org/articles/uaw-statement-immigration-reform-0
I also encourage leaders of all parties not to play politics with this issue and instead focus on solving the nation’s problems. President Obama had a moral obligation to act and is well within his authority. In fact, Presidents Reagan and George H. W. Bush took similar actions to stop deportations for over a million and half undocumented immigrants.
Since last summer, House leaders have refused to allow a vote on a Senate passed bi-partisan comprehensive bill. Their refusal to allow a vote and address our broken immigration system has left millions of families divided and living in fear. It is long past time the Congressional leadership allows an up or down vote on comprehensive immigration reform.
Since the time of Walter Reuther, the UAW has been a leader in the struggle to secure economic and social justice for all people. Our commitment to civil rights and improving the lives of working men and women extends beyond our borders. Providing a pathway to citizenship for immigrant workers and keeping families together is critical for the future of our economy and democracy. Comprehensive immigration reform supports the rights of all workers to have a voice on the job and a better opportunity to provide a decent standard of living for their families. We must lift the fear of deportation for hard working immigrants and their families.
Why, I believe that's "full-throated support for amnesty."
Xenophobic, anti-immigrant nativism is not what the labor movement is about. Maybe you're in the wrong century.
http://www.aflcio.org/content/download/3138/31512/immigration_myths_facts.pdf
Fact Comprehensive immigration reform that creates a pathway to citizenship for unauthorized immigrants in the United States would be a boon to the economy and an integral piece of fixing the broken economy for all working Americans.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)and offensively I might add, not because having one is wrong, but because you used the term as an epithet.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4759382
I think you are using the term because it's the harshest you can get away with here as a way to communicate how you feel about the undocumented.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)If there's a benign organic explanation for your stalking me from thread to thread to interject non-sequiturs and personal attacks, I would think you'd embrace it.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)those words and worse are in the code.
you use them i take it? no?
we KNOW why you use the term, you use it to insult.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)CreekDog
(46,192 posts)so apparently you can use the term "illegal alien" but you don't use other offensive terms in the US Code.
so YOU DO make choices.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Namely, the purpose to which you are applying it right now.
And if you read the words, they all seem self explanatory.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)or even if you did vote in the poll.
but your reference to the "cultural" aspect didn't just make me wonder.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)All I control is the words I write.
Current events makes me wish there was a way to discourage you from substituting entirely different ones of your own invention.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)See how that works?
Ah, probably not. You just like to post things that don't fit here and get annoyed when someone comes back and points out that the *current* thing you're offending people with is part of a long term pattern of offending people here.
azmom
(5,208 posts)
Exultant Democracy
(6,594 posts)just because when you lock a 14 year old who has lived their entire life in the US into a ICE detention facility, for god know how long, before evicting them from the only home they have ever know just calling them "undocumented" does cut it.
Iggo
(47,549 posts)
MrBig
(640 posts)Legally, someone without papers is not an immigrant, but I refuse to call another person an "alien" - it's a demeaning term in my opinion.
I also object with the use of "illegal" as an adjective to describe someone without papers. As someone said above, it connotes the individual, as a person, is illegal. They,allegedly committed an illegal act just like someone who allegedly commits any other offense.
Do we refer to someone who was arrested for trespassing as an illegal citizen? No, we say they committed an illegal act.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Cleita
(75,480 posts)warning them against exploiters who prey on them. The people I work with are legal immigrants and they say it's insulting and incorrect to call them illegal immigrants. The fact is they are not illegal. They crossed the border illegally and that's the difference. Undocumented means that they don't have the right visa and permits to work.
GReedDiamond
(5,311 posts)roody
(10,849 posts)I teach their children.
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)"Undocumented" is an attempt to imply that illegal immigration is just a mix up with paperwork, rather than a conscious decision to break part of the law.
I think it's entirely reasonable to argue that immigration laws are not important, and choosing to break them is not a big deal.
But I think that obfuscating the fact that that is what illegal immigrants have done is an actively dishonest approach to the debate.
JustAnotherGen
(31,811 posts)Had biometric or finger print recording. This was required of resident aliens post 9/11.
Looking forward - assuming we will provide our neighbors with a legal pathway to becoming a resident alien - I would expect this to happen.
I expect some people will be angry about that - but it's something that everyone with a legal alien resident card has to do.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)Would you call them that to their face?
If you would, that speaks for itself.
If you wouldn't, well, that's pretty enlightening too.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)And for some mystifying reason, you are here lecturing Americans to use a less humane term towards immigrants in our country.
Why would someone from England be SOOOOO concerned that we might use the more humane term?
Absolutely mystifying.
and then you post stuff like this?
Who posts here from another country to say this kind of stuff? (which I think is crap...)
http://betterment.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5007781
What on earth? Do you not want folks in this country to work be more humane to our immigrants and to those victims of racism?
Why on earth does someone from England and living there, spend time posting here to discourage us from being more humane on these issues?
WHAT is the motivation? It makes no sense to me.
JustAnotherGen
(31,811 posts)I tend to use undocumented - but my husband's green card reads ( haven't seen it in awhile) - Legal Resident Alien.
a la izquierda
(11,791 posts)depending on the context (for example, undocumented migrants vs. braceros).
Otherwise, just immigrants.
I took a group of students to Mexico in May. They got to see the urban and rural poverty that many Mexicans deal with on a daily basis. It changed some perspectives on the issue of immigration.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Most undocumented persons in the US did not immigrate illegally. I can't stress this enough. Most of them entered legally but overstayed their visa. The phrase "illegal immigrant" leads people to come up with things like building a fence when preventing illegal crossings would stop about 10% of "illegal immigration".
One low hanging fruit is the fact that we're one of the few countries that does no exit controls, so we can't actually say at a given moment who is and isn't actually physically in the country. Let ICE start doing that and the consular job of checking for previous overstays suddenly gets a lot easier. (Right now a consular officer literally can just ask a visa applicant, "did you ever overstay a US visa before?"
Vattel
(9,289 posts)Can a person be illegal? Does "illegal immigrant" just mean "someone who has immigrated illegally?" Who cares? The term is deeply offensive, especially if shortened to "illegal." Those who defend the term by saying that it is accurate are not thinking straight. It would be like defending using the term "spic" by saying, "What's wrong with that? 'Spic' is just an abbreviation of Hispanic."
Igel
(35,300 posts)You should see the look in a student's eyes when I say he'ss cheated on a test and proven it. He's horribly hurt. They're outraged and offended if you catch them lying and call it "lying" and, if they do it repeatedly, let the only accurate word hanging in the air: "liar". If it's the truth, then it's the truth.
At least we're past the idiocy of "undocumented worker," which is where it began. I completely refused to call a group of illegal aliens or illegal immigrants "undocumented workers" when it included small children and infants. That entailed thinking of small children and infants as first and foremost labor. "Hey, you there, yeah, you, the 17-month-old worker, that's you."
I don't shorten it to just "illegal."
As for the difference between "illegal person who has immigrated" versus "person who has illegally immigrated," that's like saying it really doesn't matter if I say "It's a bad student that was tested" versus "It's a student that was badly tested." Meh. It's just language, and language doesn't. (And if it doesn't matter, then we have two choices. Either "spic" also doesn't matter. Or flibble triminy huring pintum.)
Most of it is framing for political purposes, which mean manipulation. Some is for honor. If a person illegally immigrated, then they should be held accountable. If somebody just forgot to pick up their documentation, then it's a minor oversight. It's the same with "deportation splits up families" and if the family reunifies in the other country (let's say, Greece) then the kids born here have to learn Greek--horrors! And the poor things have to return or move to hell-holes (and all the white Americans wrinkle up their noses because, well, living in *that* country ... worse than daily caustic enemas. But immigration is good, even if immigration splits up families and many immigrants leave family behind. And when they're reunited here, the kids born there have to learn English (let the angels sing). The assumption is that only remaining and reuniting in the US is worthwhile; and learning English is good while learning other languages is horrible. Much of the argument relies on American ethnocentrism and implicit racism. But since most immigrants do so for money, that's a price to pay--and people who insist on moral purity can stand the taint of hypocrisy and a bit of banking on jingoism and racism.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)I'm transitioning to "undocumented" since "illegal" has come to be associated with racist, anti-immigrant douche-bags.
The fact is that they ARE illegal immigrants, but the term is now so charged with hate that I'm abandoning it.
rock
(13,218 posts)I'm an old guy and that's what they have always been called. "Undocumented" doesn't make much sense (unless they've lost their passport). I know "undocumented" is the new PC version, at least as endorsed by many (as though if we could just get the labeling correct, the problem would be so much easier). But what do the immigrants themselves who are here illegally want to be labeled?
rock
(13,218 posts)I suppose the pedantically correct term would be "the illegally immigrated".
MineralMan
(146,286 posts)Either works for me. Illegal doesn't.
Immigrants are immigrants.
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)It's considered more polite to refer to people who cannot prove they are here legally as "undocumented." Politeness aside, the term "undocumented" always applies, since it covers foreigners who are here illegally, as well as those who are here legally, but may not be able to prove it. The right wingers like to use the term "illegal immigrant" because it stirs up more hate and fear, but they need to specify they are speaking only of those people who are definitely violating the law by being here, not the people who are applying for asylum, disputing their status, etc.
hunter
(38,310 posts)Personally, I've never had reason to consider anyone's immigration status.
(I'm not the sort who hires anyone, mostly because I never have any money...)
This "immigration" problem would go away if we had tough labor laws to prevent the abuse of *ANY* workers, and living wages. Strong international Unions would be a great thing too, to resist the abuses of international corporations.
Immigrants are frequently treated as disposable workers who can be abused and cheated out of fair wages because they are afraid of being deported, and rightfully afraid in many places of U.S. "authorities" who are racist assholes, bullies, flunkies, and anti-union goons.
Both your terms piss me off, but the politically correct (and rightfully so) term "undocumented" is a much less offensive expression when talking to people who are naive about these issues.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)
IVoteDFL
(417 posts)For one because nutjobs hate it almost as much as they hate "happy holidays". I also hate applying the word illegal to a person. A lot of people break laws, but we do not refer to them as "Illegals".
olddots
(10,237 posts)worse names than they can comprehend .
yellowcanine
(35,699 posts)
dumbcat
(2,120 posts)that you will not get an accurate answer to your question here. Only one answer is acceptable, and that's what you will get regardless of real opinions. You can see what happens when someone expresses the "wrong" answer.
hunter
(38,310 posts)... what's the point?
I'm tone deaf to cliquish stuff and dog whistles, I'm not looking for an echo chamber, so it's just easier to say whatever I'm thinking.
Shall I take it you think your answer is "not acceptable" here?
Anyways, here's a sign from the Great Depression:
The sign was directed at other U.S. citizens.
Should I have a problem with it?
My "people" were already here in California.
dumbcat
(2,120 posts)That is pretty clear around here.
No, you shall not.
As for your sign, it was ignored. And many of the Okies landed in the Salinas Valley. I studied at the Steinbeck Library.
hunter
(38,310 posts)I think anyone who is working and paying taxes in a place is contributing to society. Otherwise this "free" market we U.S. Americans claim to celebrate is a cruel farce.
But I'm absolutely not a Libertarian of any sort. I think laws that protect workers ought to be strictly enforced, blind to immigration status.
I think any job that's worth doing ought to pay a comfortable living wage including health insurance, and that anyone who works here in the U.S.A. for a few years deserves to be a citizen if they choose. People whose parents brought them here as children deserve an easy path to citizenship too.
I believe in strong labor unions.
My grandparent's cousins and elders were among those making life miserable for Okies in California, people who hated John Steinbeck and burned his books mostly because he was one of them and a traitor to his "own" people. My grandparents themselves weren't quite so bad because they had crazy dreams about art and airplanes and rockets and Hollywood and didn't stay home as ranchers, dairymen, and farmers in the places roads carry their family names, and the real estate, still agricultural covered in grape vines, salad leaves, strawberries, or more highly developed, is all very, very expensive.
My grandparents all ran off to the cities between the ages of fifteen and twenty.
My kids, nephews and nieces, attend and have attended schools where the promotion and graduation ceremonies are held in English and Spanish, Spanish mostly for the sake of very proud grandparents. 40% of the families in my community do not speak English at home.
But the second or third immigrant generation speaks American English. Languages have always worked like that in human society, and pushing harder by force of law is abusive, and worse when that's deliberately designed to destroy a culture. I have the highest respect for any culture that resists, protecting and restoring their native language.
My wife's dad is a native Spanish speaker, his parents were immigrant farmworkers from Mexico, curiously born in a farm labor camp near a very small orchard my parents later owned. Before that, his ancestors were immigrants to Mexico refugees from the U.S.A. territories, escaping this nation's wars and oppression against Native Americans. My wife's grandma refused U.S.A. citizenship even though she'd lived most of her life here; the scars were that deep.
One of my grandfathers, bless-his-heart, freaked out that I was marrying in his words, "A Mexican girl." Men in his family just didn't do that. (Like he should talk, with his Irish ancestors!) He boycotted our wedding. To his credit he got over that.
your opinions are the approved ones.
hunter
(38,310 posts)I'm a radical leftist, radical environmentalist, social justice Catholic heretic, not "mainstream" in any way, and way out in left field past the fence compared to most posters here on DU.
I do vote Democratic because the alternatives here in our U.S.A. "two-party" system are always worse, and I include people like Ralph Nader and Jill Stein in that assessment, not because they are bad people (though I sometimes wonder about Nader), but because it takes a politician like Obama to play the game. As much as I love Jimmy Carter, Obama is the most competent U.S. President of my adult life.
I never ever again want to suffer empty-headed venal sock-puppets presidents like Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush.
Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)Sometimes there are multiple acceptable answers too. And sometimes using the term "opinion" to justify a wrong answer will get called out here. It's a discussion board with no quarter for one half of the political spectrum so this should come as no surprise.
dumbcat
(2,120 posts)Thank you.
Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)We should make it so that not only do US workers get paid a living wage, but people in all countries do. It could be part of I dunno maybe a trade agreement.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Why quibble?
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Modern US politicians always use the word reform, such as "welfare reform", "Social Security reform", "education reform" or "immigration reform" in a way that roughly translates to "fuck american workers".
An alien here legally is either an immigrant or a non-immigrant depending on whether they are here temporarily or permanently. If that alien is not here legally, and subject to deportation, they are inherently impermanent and illegal.
Immigration is for all practical purposes unrestricted because Republicans want cheap labor.
randys1
(16,286 posts)Annoying as hell, with a history of murder and rape, but nowadays most of these uninvited invaders and thieves of this land are just people
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)you'd be pretty mad and be taking quite the opposite position.
randys1
(16,286 posts)whites.
Liberal whites, like myself, we fight that shit.
Prism
(5,815 posts)I take my cue from my sister-in-law who immigrated here from Mexico. She has interesting views (which I won't share here, because DU would flip). But it's an interesting study in how she and her family feel. I'll just say, in my experience, legal immigrants have less tolerance for illegal ones. For reasons, of course.
840high
(17,196 posts)very little tolerance for illegals.
Prism
(5,815 posts)My sister-in-law and others more or less feel, "I did the work and followed the rules. Everyone else should, too."
840high
(17,196 posts)a long time to come to the USA. Nobody handed us anything - we were expected to learn the language and work. Say hi to your sister-in-law.
Prism
(5,815 posts)She met my brother at a relative's quincinera. I have no idea how those two ever dated to begin with. She literally didn't speak a word of English. Six months after they met, she came to visit him in the States, and they were sitting there communicating with Spanish-English dictionaries! It was the oddest thing. I suspect . . . the sex was really good? She was always relieved when I dropped by because I can manage conversational Spanish and would spend the evening translating between the two of them.
But, she applied to immigration, took two years of ESL courses, and they eventually married and had kids, etc. It was a whole years long thing, but you can't say she didn't work her ass off for it.
So her thoughts are always interesting. I don't necessarily share them, but I appreciate her perspective as someone who has been through it from the country we're all so worried about.
840high
(17,196 posts)living in the house next to my daughter. cu later
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)
or do you have actual data to back up your assertion?
Prism
(5,815 posts)With Mexican-American immigrants in my family.
Maybe I should give you their phone number so you can bitch them out?
I'm sure they're eager to hear from you.
randys1
(16,286 posts)that is who you are talking about?
Inkfreak
(1,695 posts)But it's an awesome way for people to snipe back & forth at each other here. Also a fantastic way to accuse other Dems of being rethugs.
Whether you call them "illegal immigrants" or "undocumented" is immaterial to me. I'm more interested in if you believe others have a right to come here and settle. And have access to become citizens in this country. It's quite obvious many wish to become Americans and making it difficult to become one leads to many coming here and not become "legal" citizens. Being "undocumented" can hurt them as they get ingrained into our society. Through getting healthcare or good jobs, education. Everything we all enjoy as natural born citizens.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)As I don't call anyone doing five miles an hour over the posted speed limit an 'illegal driver', I'll try to stay consistent, and use Undocumented Worker.
However, I'd hazard that, regardless of the self-inflicted martyrdom ("I'll use *this* term on DU instead, prophecy the negative reaction and revel in my self-righteous idiocy..." , consistency can be inconvenient for the simple-minded...
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Still looking to validate that bias, eh? Unlicensed driver would be accurate.
Response to LanternWaste (Reply #178)
hughee99 This message was self-deleted by its author.
Facility Inspector
(615 posts)
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)
DawgHouse
(4,019 posts)Orrex
(63,203 posts)I don't usually go for the phrase "undocumented immigrants" because most of the times that it comes up, I'm talking to someone who refers to them as "illegals," so I use the simplified "immigrants" because it's descriptive and also annoying to the agenda of the anti-immigration person with whom I'm speaking.
If I were having a grown-up discussion about immigration (say, the kind of conversation that might occur here @ DU) then I'd probably use "undocumented immigrants" to distinguish from legal immigrants.
Raine1967
(11,589 posts)Raine1967
(11,589 posts)CreekDog
(46,192 posts) LynnTTT
(362 posts)Undocumented isn't correct either. They are documented in their own country. In this country they are immigrants who did enter illegally. Doesn't make them bad people and I would not say "criminal". But face it, they are in this country illegally. Once they are here we get them documented in whatever way possible. I'm fully behind Obama's plans because we aren't going to send them back. But on this one I'm willing to meet the right on the actual term
avebury
(10,952 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)But most people seem to agree it's not cool to call people illegal. I would agree with that too.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Last edited Fri Jul 3, 2015, 10:12 PM - Edit history (1)
And they couldn't speak the language and all of that.
You just know the natives were all saying behind their backs, 'There goes the neighborhood.'
Thought the natives should learn English, I'll bet. Rather uppity folks, don't you think?
I sure hope they don't ship me back, I wouldn't do well there.
Sancho
(9,067 posts)it makes no sense to call someone brought to the US as a child (for example), who was raised here, attended school here, and works here for decades "illegal" like they are criminal or broke a law.
They are undocumented because there is no reasonable path to citizenship. In many cases, that immigrant would be out of place or find it impossible to return to their country of birth.
There are many other real stories of how insane it is...approximately 25% of Florida was born in another country.
I'm glad that Hillary has spoken up early on the issue. It's very important to the future of the US to deal with the immigration issue.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)Thanks for your good comments here and elsewhere.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)okasha
(11,573 posts)Including the Brits and Huguenots who arrived in North America in the 16th.-17th. centuries.
Sen. Walter Sobchak
(8,692 posts)who do fuck-all with their lives to better themselves or anyone else.
ananda
(28,858 posts)No human being is illegal.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)Orsino
(37,428 posts)astral
(2,531 posts)So, then, here is no such thing as borders between countries, if the country with he incoming is the USA?
It is not illegal or bad to come here illegally?
It is not ok to control immigration at all, to check ID (hah hah), to ask for passports, or for that matter to check for incoming contageous diseases? Not when the USA is the country they are coming into?
Are these your opinions of anybodys boundaries anywhere in any, or, every, country on the planet, or do you believe this country, the benelovent melting pot, is special and different from every other nation, like the big boat that cant sink even if everybody hops on board with no head count?
Open up your eyes and see whats REALLY going on here. The nation has already been brought to its knees and is about to be shot in the back of the head.
Its not about which people should be here and which ones shouldnt. The jobs have been exported, new grateful 'not-so-greedy' workers have been imported. Healthcare costs are going up and wages are going down. Adults are standing in line to get minimum-wage entry level jobs once reserved for youth just learning how to work. The rich may be getting richer but the smart rich have already made a beeline out of this country because they can see the sinking ship. The United States will never be back to what it once was or what it could have become. The people coming in perhaps all through the southern border are not just Mexican or Hispanic but many other nationalities, including foreign military forces, and if you want to see Mexicans that is what you will see if they happen to be Chinese.
So lets all be one big melting pot because why should the USA have a better standard of living than their southern neighbors? That certainly is not my point. Leveling the playing field is something that ought to have to happen sooner or later,but its much more than that. Its the end of this country. The massive importation of population is not the cause of the problem but only one of the tools they are using.
We will have Russian and Chinese and maybe even German soldiers policing our citizens while our own soldiers are stationed overseas. Well, except for the new undocumented military personnel who are volunteering in exchange for citizenship, they will be kept here, they wont be shipped overseas.
Am i getting off-topic here? I think not. Just having a little reality check.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)Especially since many crossed the border as children.
